Posted on 01/16/2004 8:17:04 PM PST by techie12
To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter
I'm told that Margaret Spellings from the White House spoke today at a forum on the president's immigration plan at the CATO Institute. She made it clear that the plan would definitely include high-skilled workers. In other words, it would make H-1B obsolete.
(Among other things, it would mean no cap and no prevailing-wage requirement, though as I've often said, neither the cap nor the prevailing-wage requirement afford any real protection to U.S. workers anyway.)
Spellings' remarks should not come as a surprise to anyone who reads this e-newsletter. As I said in my posting here last week (enclosed below), what people (including many immigration experts) don't understand is that BUSH'S PLAN IS NOT ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. For the reasons I gave in my earlier posting (i.e. the employers of illegals today would not want to pay health insurance, Soc. Security, workman's comp etc.), most jobs done by illegals now would CONTINUE to be done by illegals. It wouldn't make even a small dent in illegal immigration.
Instead, the real effect (and likely, the real intention) of the Bush plan would be to open virtually all jobs in the U.S. to the lowest bidder--and, given the disparities in standards of living, the lowest bids will be very low indeed. In terms of tech jobs, I said last week that even if there were a stipulation that jobs covered by the Bush program not normally require a Bachelor's degree, employers would find loopholes around such a stipulation. But that was merely a "what if" statement on my part, certainly no based on any reports that Bush had been considering such a stipulation, and now Spellings has stated explicitly that that is all it was; i.e. she has confirmed that Bush has no intention of imposing such a stipulation.
If Bush does try to get Congress to draft legislation for his proposal, I guarantee you that virtually everything you see in the press (including from "talking head" economists) will focus on the proposal's relation to illegal immigration. But remember, it is NOT about illegal immigration, and would in fact have almost no effect on illegal immigration.
Norm
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:34:09AM -0800, Norm Matloff wrote:
To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter
We are all waiting to see what the details of the Bush guest worker plan will be. But based on the broad outlines we've been told so far, it appears to me that this legislation, if passed, would produce a sea change in American society. Allow me to make a few predictions:
1. The jobs currently being done by "undocumented" workers will CONINUE to be done by them. They are hired today because they are cheap labor. The notion implicitly put forth by the Bush administration that the employers in the agricultural, restaurant, construction etc. industries will want to hire Bush's guest workers, complete with medical benefits, Social Security taxes, Workman's Comp etc. is absolutely absurd. In other words, the bill would not even make a dent on the main problem it's supposed to address.
2. The visa program will not say "Only current or former illegal aliens need apply, and only low-skilled jobs may be filled under this program." Most of the people who use the program will be filling positions in the mainstream job market. As long as the foreign workers have good English--and there are tons of people around the world with fluent enough English--there is no reason they couldn't be hired as clerical workers, insurance claims adjusters, airline ticket agents, teachers, you name it. The hotel industry, for instance, makes it sound like it would use the program to hire maids, but there really isn't any job in the whole damn hotel that couldn't be filled with a guest worker. They'd love to come and work for wages at the entry level or below entry-level for those occupations.
And even the programmer and engineer jobs would be vulnerable. Sure, the program structure could include a provision saying something like, "Not for jobs normally requiring a Bachelor's degree," but so what? The employers would suddenly decide that many programming and engineering jobs don't need a Bachelor's. If it weren't so sad, it would be comical to watch, say, Sun Microsystems, use this new program to hire sub-Bachelor's workers for the same jobs that Sun is now insisting require a Bachelor's degree (the requirement for H-1B).
3. Last year I myself proposed the idea of a jobs database, at which Americans would get first crack with guest workers being eligible for whatever can't be filled by Americans, in my H-1B reform proposal (see http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Summary.pdf). But my proposal is constructed as an integrated package in which all the parts depend on each other. Bush's guest worker program undoubtedly won't be like this. It will simply say that if the employer can't fill the job with an American, then he can hire a guest worker. Well, all the employer will have to do is set the wage low (even entry level would probably be sufficiently low, especially since the large influx of workers would have the effect of making the entry-level wage lower and lower), and bingo!, there will be a "shortage" of American applicants. And that isn't even mentioning all the other tricks employers use today in defining a position in such a manner that only a foreign worker would qualify.
4. Fortunately for the tech industry, most programmers and engineers are wimps who won't fight the outrages going on with H-1B, but if as I predicted above this program hits the general middle in a big way (note that no one has mentioned a cap for the program), I can picture the populace in a very ugly, riotous mood.
Norm (
Professor Norm Matloff's Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage
)
Everything Bush and its other supporters has said about this bill is transparently just a smokescreen. In reality it is nothing more than an unlimited permanent version of the H1-B (indentured servent) program, but with no limits or restrictions of any sort."
Many won't believe that but here are independent ways of confirming -- or at least seeing that it quite possibly is true in many cases -- and you can do it from home. google, India cheating. You can also visit news groups that are for specific programming languages. There you will find -- it's been a few years since I last looked -- urgent appeals for help with this or that aspect of the language.
Am I mean-spirited and bigoted? I reckon so, I guess.
Way back in the days before PC (the days of John Cameron "Timex, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking" Swayze) there were annual stories like the following. Apparently the only thing that's changed is the calendar and we now have PC. Hmmm. Maybe these stories were reported after the kids, Chet and David, replaced John. I don't remember for sure.
http://www.rense.com/general38/banon.htm
"3,000 Indian Law Students Riot Over New Ban On Cheating," By Shaikh Azizur Rahman in Calcutta, 7-10-3
I remembered. That's why I googled. But for info on real cheating google for China.
Nothing like a little *clarity* on the administration's illegal proposal, huh Braveman?
Now this could, potentially, hit mighty close to home for those working in the engineering (& other technically oriented) fields, y'know?
And Scholar for now -- anyway -- you're safe in the medical field, but'cha never know, either.
My (offline) joke to you about them outsourcing your job to Haiti & paying you unemployment because it'd be cheaper, may not be that far off the wall, after all.
Not saying it will happen, of course; but, it damned well could & really there's no logical reason it shouldn't; if, all we're going to do is look at the "bottom line", right?
Having watched -- for years -- how American business has expressed their love of country in places like India or China, it doesn't take a genius to figure out.
...it's only a matter of time.
Ummm, wahdda novel idea.
BTW I *think* the number's probably closer to 20,000,000; not, that an extra 10,000,000 loving, needing souls make all that much difference when we're talking about something as limitless as "The Big PX", right?
Be that as it may, an excellent -- albeit logical -- suggestion, nonetheless.
"Oh, but we'd better enlist Israel's help in building the Great Wall of America first."
Hey, now there's another excellent idea.
You're on a roll, guy!! (~what'd that Dr give ya yesterday anyway, a turbocharged sample pack of Viagra?)
Who'd better know how to deal with living next to & among millions of maniacs, most of whom are hellbent on slitting our's, our wife's & our kid's throats as we sleep, than the Israeli people?
I suppose you'd have us *consult* with the French, huh.
I'm sorry, that was uncalled for, totally due to a reflex action I'll attribute to memory-movements learned in the martial arts. :o)
"Its obvious from this post the only way to advance conservatism is to vote democratic."
Well my friend of many years, given your concept of conservatism, I don't think that's too outrageous a suggestion.
I mean, considering the source.
~Really.
Those who'd foresake -- even for a moment -- the nation's security by embracing what seems to have become an ever-growing & apparently popular "Compassionate Conservatism", sound a lot more "left" than they do "right" anyway as it is; errrr, or "right"<-->"left"...ahhh, maybe middle-center-upsidedown-political-feelgood-hopscotch.
Hell, *who* can say??
HA!!
And here I was gonna tell ya your Liberal roots were showing, again.
Guess *that's* not needed, is it?
Obviously this time you've done too good of a job doing it on your own volition.
Ya rendered my whole role in your ideological life moot, ya SOB. ;^)
A whole day out together, alone, on the good ship "Braveman", huh?
...the odds we'd survival 6 hrs are mighty slim. {g}
Don't think for one moment Landru didn't appreciate just how much it must've pained Braveman to have to admit that, OK?
...but that's *it* for "Compassionate Conservatism" from me, y'hear?
Yes, I believe you're correct; and, therein lies *the* paradox.
For in a Capitalist, supposedly freemarket based economy, a self professed "patriot" is damned hard pressed to be critical of an American businessman who's merely making a buck, eh?
On this very topic my friend, "FBD", reminded me of a quote -- by someone whose name I now forget -- which essentially said the Capitalist would sell the rope they'd soon be hung with.
As for whoever said it?
...they're absolutely right.
Well, actually the union thugs are motivated by the left reasons, I-A. {g}
No matter, ya had to know the unionists would have a gargantuan spas attack; so, no friends were made with this, nor, were any expected.
The unions have pissed on conservative politicians for so long it's about time they reap the harvest they have sown, as far as I'm concerned.
But here, this is what's going to cause a firestorm once the intelligencia in acadamia figure out the implications:
"In terms of tech jobs, I said last week that even if there were a stipulation that jobs covered by the Bush program not normally require a Bachelor's degree, employers would find loopholes around such a stipulation. But that was merely a "what if" statement on my part, certainly no[t] based on any reports that Bush had been considering such a stipulation, and now Spellings has stated explicitly that that is all it was; i.e. she has confirmed that Bush has no intention of imposing such a stipulation."
Think of the academics & *how* they've featherbedded themselves & their careers on the back of the American taxpayer.
Not only did they convince Americans, enmasse, their kid(s) stood absolutely "No chance whatsoever for success or happiness in American life" if they did not acquire a college level eduation, but then that scare tactic morphed into "Every kid should have a college education, (remember, "No child left behind" buttressed with "inclusion" which served to justify "Women's Studies" & "French Ceramics" prOOOOgrams? :o) ) & that soon became "Every kid has a right to a university education."
Now days, if one wanted to become a dogcatcher they'd better minimally have an AAS in "Veterinary Science"; or, they can forget about it.
In 20 short years we've seen where more & more classified ads are stating -- quite emphatically -- "Bachelors Degree Required."
~Period.
Now of course there're *some* occupations requiring education beyond a 12th grade education & we all can understand what those occupations might be; but, there're many more that do not, but for the fact people running many organizations are exercisizing "payback" to their alum in one way or another or are relying on clleges & universities to do for them what used to be expected of private bussiness, themselves, with "new hires."
In any event, looks like there could be a major shift in the paradigm on the near horizon.
Wait'll it dawns on acadamia the need for their services might just be severly curtailed because [many] of the imposed requirments instigated by they themselves, have been downgraded & insodoing their grads rendered as un-needed as they, themselves. :o)
That is, IF they choose to sit idly back & do nothing about this; &, ice cubes in hell come to mind in that regard.
Think Newt Gingrich & his talk of reducing the size of the federal leviathon of goverment; hence, their influence caused a stink in '95?
Think about what happened once all the individual unions & other splinter entities that were threatened with extinction became energized & got in synch with their sycophant mediots.
Wait.
...we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.